500 words a day on whatever I want

science

Science is our body of knowledge of the natural world. It is more than just a long list of facts: it includes the theories that fit the facts together and explain them. Facts tell us what is so, theories tell us why it is so.

Science used to be called natural philosophy because it was the branch of philosophy that explained the natural world. But no one calls it that now because science no longer works the way philosophy does. It has become something halfway between philosophy and geometry.

These days science almost always means Western science. There were other sciences: Greek science, Arab science, Chinese science and so on.

Western science is built on Greek science but it takes it much further. What distinguishes the two are the rules that they follow.

Science is not just theories and facts: it is also a set of rules about how to do science.

Greek science had three rules:

Observation: gather the facts.

Theory: apply reason to the facts to come up with a theory that explains them.

You may use no gods in your theory.

Before the Greeks everyone explained nature by gods and spirits. The Greeks, however, starting with Thales, attempted to explain nature as a system that kept on going without help from the gods. Gods may have created nature and may act within it, but they do not keep it in operation. It goes on by itself.

Because gods can explain everything, they explain nothing. Also, god theory gives man no means to control nature by himself. It does not lead to invention, but to prayer and sacrifice.

As good as it was, Greek science had a weakness: There was no way to prove a theory right or wrong so long as it kept within the bounds of fact and reason, which any serious theory did. The choice between theories became a matter of taste. Science was divided into schools of thought just like the philosophy from which it sprang.

To mend this Western science added two new rules:

Occam’s razor: the simplest theory that explains the most facts is the best.

Experiment: A theory must have a test, often called an experiment, by which it can be proved false.

A good theory will not only explain the known facts but also predict something surprising, a previously unknown fact. If it turns out to be false, the theory is rejected. If it turns out to be true, it will gain followers, win awards and in time be written up in school books as the truth.

The great age of Greek science ran from the time of Thales, about –600, till 200. By 200 most of what could be done in Greek science had already been done. The Arabs were able to take it a bit further, but that was all.

It was not till the time of Galileo, about 1600, with the rise of Western science that another great age of science came. We live in that age.

Great men! elevated above the common standard of human nature, by discovering the laws which celestial occurrences obey, and by freeing the wretched mind of man from the fears which the eclipses inspired.
– pliny

@ Legion, it could be a false dichotomy. Not if you see it from the “Western” standpoint, though. But the Western standpoint is not the only one, nor is it the only one that matters of course.

To the ancient Indians (India), maths was seen as a gift from the gods, embracing both what is rational and irrational.
It was a natural feature in memorizing scripture, a way understanding the nature of the astral and divine, and — yes — necessary for the physical construction of alters! Numbers themselves were imbued with mystic power and that’s why they had part of the religious writings. Different shapes too, symbolized different religious ideas, and so on.

This way of looking at science has been written out of the European tradition, and appropriated, under other names, by Europeans as THEIRS.
Much has been over-attributed to the Greeks. And that is not the intention of the fault of the Greeks.

This way of thinking is just part of the way we are conditioned to think.
Thinking about the way people and things are labeled “ethnic”, I said this:

The label ETHNIC is embedded so deeply, it contaminates everything it touches, and it’s so pervasive we aren’t even meant to notice that it is not innocent.

It labels practically everything which is seen as Western and Civilization.
That includes even the measurement of time:
Stone Age, Bronze Age and so on, are all calculated by archaeologists, but all those periods are organized around the beginning of Christianity, thus BC, AD — and this means ETHNIC inserts the dominance of Western, over Eastern Civilization, just as slyly as that. Yet, what that organizes is the sequence of human development — us and them, light and dark, mainstream and ethnic.

It’s the same outlook that makes, say, Acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine or the Ayurvedic Tradition “alternative” medicine. Are they trustworthy..?
Anlother example, Ethnobotany — the study of people and plants, becomes the way “backward” people work with their environment, it does not refer to the way sophisticated Western SCIENCE approaches the uses and effects of plants. Nothing accidental or tribal or witch-crafty about Western Medicine…

When someone or thing is classified as ethnic, they and it do not inherit the full force of authority which is the entitlement passed down by the Ancient Greeks’ objective methodology.
Because there is no Cartesian model or Newtonian framework to give those “ethnic” research-results credibility and gravity.

I suppose this why we the Polish scientist Copernicus is credited for discovering the sun is placed at the centre of the universe, instead of al-Biruni, the Persian. And if we only one more example, the invention of Calculus, it is a toss up between Leibniz or Newton, instead of the Indian Madhava of Sangama centuries before.
Why? Because only a man educated and schooled in the Western Scientific Tradition could think like a real mathematician/physicist and be correct, by Western standards, in his conclusions.
The ETHNIC label is dichotomous thinking in action. Those that are “ethnic” have too much interconnected-ness and religion and spirituality and have too much “complementarity” in their thinking to be taken seriously.
The ETHNIC label makes anyone, plus their results and solutions, second rate.

You’ve said a lot here B and I will try to digest it all. To be explicit on one point though, the “invention of Calculus” thing has bothered me for years. I always wondered if there were some story I did not know, some historical development somewhere other than Europe. So, this Madhava of Sangama discovered/invented Calculus? Can you elaborate?

I first heard about this through a close friend/colleague that was a relative of physicist who knew a lot about the subject, and visited the KSOM (the Kerala School of Mathematics) during his career. As much as he admired the Western canon of science, he believed it was artificially dominant and had done much harm.

Let me quote from Madhava of Sangama’s FB page:

Madhava of Sangamagrama (c. 1340 – c. 1425), was an Indian mathematician-astronomer from the town of Sangamagrama (present day Irinjalakuda) near Cochin, Kerala, India. He is considered the founder of the Kerala school of astronomy and mathematics. He was the first in the world to use infinite series approximations for a range of trigonometric functions, which has been called the “decisive step onward from the finite procedures of ancient mathematics to treat their limit-passage to infinity”. His discoveries opened the doors to what has today come to be known as Mathematical Analysis. One of the greatest mathematician-astronomers of the Middle Ages, Madhava made pioneering contributions to the study of infinite series, calculus, trigonometry, geometry, and algebra.

Some scholars have also suggested that Madhava’s work, through the writings of the Kerala school, may have been transmitted to Europe via Jesuit missionaries and traders who were active around the ancient port of Muziris at the time. As a result, it may have had an influence on later European developments in analysis and calculus.

Not “scatty” at all my dear. Thank you for extra info. It makes sense to me that if the Indians developed the concept of zero, a small quantity, (oversimplifying a little), they would also do work that that fits under Calculus (the study of small changes between interconnected things).

Science gave us computers, lasers, transistors, electricity, magnetism, cars, planes, refrigeration, medicine, steam power, the Internet… and so much more. Science has enhanced our standard of living to phenomenal heights never before seen in the thousands of years of human history. Finance is mistaken as the origin of wealth but it is merely speculation that feeds off of scientific advancement, which is the true source of economic prosperity… In fact, the main reason that the world is dominated by the West today is because of Western science, which gave Europe the weapons and technology to conquer the Earth.

You certainly have a point there. Money and economics are huge in any discussion about science. I don’t think you can separate techno-science from global capitalism…or religion and ethics for that matter.

From what you say, though, it seems you believe our development is linear, singular and happens at definite stages, following the great model of West: Western science’s impact on industrialization. If you do believe that, then Abagond’s post on science should not only talk about money, but political agendas too.

Science was always consisted of more than one subject, like race and gender came to be understood as intersectional now. Science used to be called Philosophy, the words were interchangeable at one time.
Modern Science, on the other hand is different, because after all the Revolutions in science, science became another way of saying “the application of scientific method”, becoming an institution and a profession, even a corporation.

Abagond once asked this question: What if history were reversed and blacks had guns and ocean-going ships before whites did?
Is that what-if question so different from this real-life scene here:
Israel can get whatever it wants from the US, like seventy billion dollars a year, plus weapons and such, whilst it’s been a no-no for Iran to have a nuclear programme because that would be a threat?
I believe the Israelis possess in excess of 400 nuclear bombs at their disposal, yet we’re all safer for that.

(I once saw a listing of the various Jewish terrorist groups held by the US government, but never, I mean nowhere, ever, have I seen any Western government point the finger at any of those groups in relation to 9/11.)

The Israelis can steal land, and murder the people on it, but it has been the Palestinians who will portrayed, via technology, as the perpetrators of destruction…so, yes, 100% agreed — science has lead to some very wonderful outcomes — but, if you are going to lay a theory about economic progress over it, you are going to stumble over notions of BACKWARDNESS in the process. Some nations and some peoples don’t fit the Western model of progress that well.

When everyone, everywhere is expected to “get with the programme” of Progress and Advancement, then, it’s more than science and money at play. You will see the sciences of statistics and planning come forward, as agrarian communities break up and breakdown and urbanization is pushed, you will see a reliance on borrowed technologies rather than indigenous ones, you will see privatization, the selling off of state assets, common agricultural policies, and the “intervention” of institutions — foreign institutions — to “channel” human capital and physical capital to industries.
But few might ask who has determined who, and what, is “backward”! Those voices might be silenced as being irrelevant or out of touch with the times because if family clan structure disappears, or the young people who have migrated struggle to find work or education and live on their own, or that birth rates become negative, as do marriage rates, or that women in violent relationships are forced to stay because of isolation and economic dependence, or see higher rates of hiv, prostitution, etc. — all begin to be a feature of that society, then, those factors just the casualities, the collateral damage of advancement, progress. And there’s nothing you can do to stop it.

True, the world has changed massively in the last 100 years.
Look at human population growth and consumption patterns.
Look at the impact on every region’s ecosystem, the atmospheric chemistry of planet. Who thought science would become so powerful.

People tend to forget that African Americans have made significant contributions to science as well. Otis Boykins invented 28 electronic devices including the control unit for the pacemaker. Dr. Ben Carsons the neurosurgeon and professor lead a medical team that became the first to separate Siamese twins successfully. Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson astrophysicist and science communicator. He is the director of the Hayden Planetarium. I learned about Dr. Tyson while channel surfing on the television. I thought hee was a handsome brother, and watched the PBS show NOVA.

This is a good thread post. This in addition to why there is talk in the media about what to teach school children about in textbooks, there are words being bandied about like creationism, intelligent design and throw in the religious beliefs and it is a controversial mix. It’s interesting to me to learn what both sides the belivers vs unbelievers subscribe to when discussing science.

I realize what the laws of the universe are — wait for it — universal. LOL.
Neither, am I talking “mystically” or morality.
I am (or was) vaguely familiar with Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, and I even went to school in England, and was taught how great Newton, and England, were by my English teachers. I am not that familiar with George Washington’s wealth, though I get what you mean.

Further on the subject of Newton, the teachers we had taught us kids about the character of Newton thus: When Newton said: “If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants”,
it was not because he was being modest. Not at all! Instead Newton was referring to the unfortunate and short-in-stature rival of his, Robert Hooke, whose ideas he had swiped and was subsequently credited for.

That said, I had recently that science historians are now saying it is the Iraqi scientist, Ibn al-Haytham (born in Basra in 965) who is the founder of the scientific method, and he lived 600 years before Galileo…

What you have given me is a summary of the Great Divergence, The European Miracle, and something of the theory of Eric Beinhocker’s “The Origin of Wealth” — which is all well and good in my opinion.
However, I am not sure what this says other than the standard fayre we have been feed over and over about the greatness of Europeans, or indeed, how it furthers what we already know? Space travel is also fine, too, but I was talking about rural communities and urbanization.

I realize that the laws of the universe are — wait for it — universal. LOL.
Neither, am I talking “mysticism” or morality.
I am (or was) vaguely familiar with Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, and I even went to school in England, and was taught how great Newton, and England, were by my English teachers. I am not that familiar with George Washington’s wealth, though I get what you mean.

Further on the subject of Newton, my teachers taught us kids about the character of Newton thus: When Newton said: “If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants” —
it was not because he was being modest. Not at all!
Instead Newton was referring to the unfortunate, short-in-stature rival of his, Robert Hooke, whose ideas he had swiped and was subsequently credited for.

That said, I heard that science historians are now saying it is the Iraqi scientist, Ibn al-Haytham (born in Basra in 965) who is the founder of the scientific method, and he lived 600 years before Galileo…

What you have given me is a summary of the Great Divergence, The European Miracle, and something of the theory of Eric Beinhocker’s “The Origin of Wealth” — which is all well and good in my opinion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence
However, I am not sure what this offers other than the standard fayre we have been feed over and over about the greatness of Europeans, or indeed, how it answers my questions?

Space travel is also fine, too, but I was talking about rural communities and urbanization.

A more colloquial way of defining materialistic wealth would be to just ask oneself “Would I trade what I own for what he owns?” If the answer is yes, that person has greater wealth. Of course, I am ignoring spiritual wealth. That’s another story.

Yes, in part, but I wasn’t referring to the Spiritual.
Being merely rich is vastly different from those that are abundant in pocket but also have great impact on the lives and/or minds of others. The merely rich often behave differently to the wealthy, the latter are usually more low-key, purposeful and passionate. Ownership doesn’t really come into it.

some of the points were analogies, which can’t be too compressed without losing the original weight of the analogy. Maybe, I’ll repost when I get over losing the post. Funnily enough, it’s actually my second response to your original comment. The first one I deleted on purpose after thinking you would get pissed/not appreciate what I said and then the second one just got lost.

I am not ashamed to say when discussing this subject you have to explain it to me like I am five. I don’t think that’s a bad thing necessarily.

No shame at all. Although once or twice others have tried to shame me for my writing and learning disabilities, I have never been ashamed of learning, or saying I don’t know.

What Kiwi says is 100% correct about making knowledge accessible, simple.
I recall once Bob Marley said he wrote his songs so that even a baby could understand them, and what he wrote was profound.

Personally, as a person who reads and writes with difficulty, I don’t think it matters if something is explained short or long, in words or pictures — it only matters that you GET IT.

I don’t have a scientific background myself — the way science was presented to me it was as if it was “complete” and so authoritative you could not question where it came from, and that to be good at it, and to understand it, was not for me. Why? Because, I also got this feeling: anyone who understood science was somehow smarter and tough-minded — the very opposite of those who understood literature or Art or such.

The image of Science is full of intimidation.

But it should not be! It’s a discipline that needs to managed responsibly, rather than anyone pretending that it just exists on its own, like it’s a “neutral” entity. This is what Martin Luther King Jr said:

Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge that is power; religion gives man wisdom that is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.

(From “Tough Mind and a Tender Heart”, found in the compilation of writings in “Strength to Love”, 1963)

The image that I should have been intimidated by Science when I was a school child was not an accident or something personal to me.

After all, hadn’t it been science that had said that as a female human, my brain was inferior to that of male human? Wasn’t it science that had said that white people were better and smarter than brown and black people? Maths was a “male” subject, wasn’t it? You had to be smart to be an engineer!
A girl interested in science should set her sights on becoming a nurse instead.

Those were the nonsense stereotypes I used to hear, and see. (In fact, nearly all of the brilliant black girls I knew that had a flair for science became nurses, instead of scientists, engineers or doctors…)

Then add in the dearth of of education about people of colour who have contributed to science research and scientific advances that we all enjoy.
And yet, all this ^^ was objective and unbiased and untainted, right?

What is the image of The Scientist? The rugged individualist, spearheading breakthroughs courageously, someone who works tirelessly and achieves through his work and merits alone. The Science World has not been exactly over-run with Women of Colour over the centuries…

There are many non-Western and non-European contributors to what we now see as Western Thought and Western Scientific Achievement.

A couple of years ago I watched the BBC series on science, hosted by Jim Al-Khalili, an Iraqi-born theoretical physicist. His documentaries took a view that is rarely seen in mainstream science education.

For instance, he explains why Arabic words like algebra, algorithm and alkali are at the very heart of modern science. After all, there would be no modern mathematics or physics without algebra, no computers without algorithms and no chemistry without alkalis.

Later, Prof Al-Khalili argues that the scholars he investigates, are among the first people to insist that all scientific theories were backed up by careful experimental observation, bringing a rigour to science that didn’t properly exist before.

Towards the end of of his journey, he visits Italy to see how these non-European ideas penetrated the West and ultimately helped shape the works of the great European scientists..

Abagond: please delete the above comment in moderation and replace with this one:

@ mary, the description I gave above about the documentary was taken from the general BBC commentary the accompanies the series.
Professor Al-Khalili’s investigation into the origins and nature of Western Science is deeply personal: he is a scientist, but also a mixed-race person trained in the Western tradition. He seems to want to find tangible roots in his Iraqi heritage and put the Eastern tradition at the centre of what we now know as “Western”. I am sure there are many more pieces to the whole that we do not yet know.

If you are interested, here are the other 2 programmes that follow the one above:

The best that can be done is to adapt to the changing landscape and prepare for the exciting century ahead. I recommended a couple of books to abagond on the open thread, along with a couple videos. You should look into them. They go deeper into what I’m talking about when I describe exponential progress.

You are quite the optimist. The least we can be is curious.
Could you re-mention the books on the OT, please? I don’t read everything here, and I don’t follow OT convos there anymore.
Thank you.

Ron Eglash has made various studies connecting our understanding of mathematics with culture, such as:
– geometry in cornrow braiding,
– spiral arcs in graffiti,
– least common multiples in percussion rhythms, and
– analytic geometry in Native American beadwork.

A quote from him:

We used to think of mathematics as a kind of ladder that you climb, and we would think of counting systems – one plus one equals two – as the first step and simple shapes as the second step. Recent mathematical developments like fractal geometry represented the top of the ladder in most Western thinking. But it’s much more useful to think about the development of mathematics as a kind of branching structure and that what blossomed very late on European branches might have bloomed much earlier on the limbs of others. When Europeans first came to Africa, they considered the architecture very disorganized and thus primitive. It never occurred to them that the Africans might have been using a form of mathematics that they hadn’t even discovered yet.

A talk from Prof. Eglash covering design structures, architecture, to games, trade, and divination systems found throughout the African continent:

He certainly is. I’m reminded of the paraphrase: Science is far too important a job to be left solely to the scientists.

Callow and naive Kiwi is ever so excited with what scientists are working on, because of course, their little projects will just naturally raise the general welfare of all people. Kiwi needs to have a look at the charming little monsters King introduced us too in the The Incomplete List of Children Obama has Killed with Drones thread.

A brief mention about the Horn of Africa’s past: Northern Ethiopia has a history of trade with India and the Romans. The were highly competent ship-builders. This part of Africa was well known by the Ancient Greeks for its seaports.
The Somalis, too, were also trading with the Romans AND the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula centuries, long before the arrival of Islam.

Perhaps the Somali and Ethiopian ship builders shared some features of ship building technology? Such as, say, mortise and tenon joints, a way to join pieces of wood without nails. This was the technology used in the building of Egypt’s ships.

I remember many years ago Sylvester Stallone said something, I thought, was bang on. He said when in high school or junior high that is when the male/female relating is at it’s purest and sweetest. Neither is trying to compete or con the other. I think he was on to something.

Without prying too much, may I ask, were these men not as accomplished as your cousin in terms of their occupations or the amount of ‘blue sky’ left for future advancement in their jobs?

Thank you for your reply. Partner selection can be tough. Peanut is having difficulty from what I can see. I know from childhood experience that one nasty trick that men (or a certain type of man) like to use is to make the woman think she is broken when in many cases the man is the one lacking (this was a large take away with me with the BWE thread as an example). And look at the defensiveness of some men on this blog when the women vent or make an honest (not intended as an attack) criticism. I hope things work out for your cousin. Thirties and well educated sounds pretty foxy already, she should persevere and be discriminating.

When Europeans first came to Africa, they considered the architecture very disorganized and thus primitive.

Someone left an interesting comment on an Open Thread. I think it is the Nov 2012-Sep2013 or Jun-Nov 2012 one. The comment had something to do with fractals and African (don’t know which country) architecture. Some relationship that went back centuries(?) was “overlooked” by Europeans and recently seen with fresh new eyes.

I would link the comment but the O.T.s are unwieldy now for me to load.

I used to read science books, after I gave up on fiction, because at one time, it was the most exciting genre there was. Books like “The Blind Watchmaker”, “Silent Spring”, “Chaos”, “Longitude”, “Steps to an Ecology of Mind”, etc.

Michio Kaku’s book is the place to begin, you’re right, I think.
But Ray Kurzweil is a bold and reaching thinker, isn’t he? I’d love to know more about futurology, but I don’t think my mind has yet grasped the singularity he speaks of. Or trans-humanism — is Dr Kurzweil a transhumanist?
Anyway, I’ll know one of these days.
*

you’ve got me interested too now. I think I’ll give Physics of the Future a go, around Christmas maybe. I’m interested in how deeply Kaku discusses his view on the limits of Moore’s law, does he spend at least a chapter discussing it?

Which other researchers and writers that have influenced you?
I am certainly interested in the 2 that you recommend, and will probably invest in those titles, but I did share several titles with you in my previous post — so, I’d be interested in your views on them.

I understand that your present interest and work will foreground your focus, but I am rather curious other science books/ideas/research that you’ve read.

Yes, just about everything we do is a projection. I was certainly needling you with that “callow and naive” comment; I could have put things differently, we can even say should have put it differently. It’s to your credit that you didn’t make a big deal about it.

Your enthusiasm and excitement for the future of science and it’s role in society metaphorically jump out at the reader. Unbridled faith/excitement in any of the ways of the world is a dangerous thing, I think. (Indeed isn’t this an axiom that every wise person carries in their heart of hearts?)

It’s an old story to promise the public a beautiful new future because of advances that will be made in science. The story is used to get the public to support whatever work scientists might be up to. But that promised future is just a carrot that may or may not materialize.

The undeniable social and political and financial currents that intersect around technology and science should inform to some extent, one’s enthusiasm and excitement. “Science” isn’t going to just hand “us” (whoever us happens to be) some beautiful future. Does society even know, can society even agree on what a beautiful future would be?

Unintended consequences and misuse and profit seeking are also risks to the manner in which a technology is utilized in society. Dating back to, I think, the 70’s, society has has been impacted with the problem of ‘superbugs’: highly resistant viruses. Superbugs came into being from over prescription. We can interpret over prescription as unbridled excess in the technology advance of antibiotics. Superbugs have continued to be a severe problem decade after decade, I would be naive (callow and naive 🙂 ) not to believe that the kickbacks (example of a financial current) that doctors (medical scientists) get for prescribing various antibiotics haven’t also contributed to the superbug problem.

“Science” also gave us BPA plastic, pesticides that are killing us and killing bees, cell cell phone towers (radiation) that are correlating with increased cancer rates, cell phone use (radiation) that is documented as causing health problems, birth control pills that have unintended consequences on a number of women. I’ve heard women say, and it’s been written about lately, that when they come off the pill, they realize that they were attracted to men that they would never give the time of day to when their hormones are in their natural state when off the pill. The point is made, no?

————————————————————————————-

A little more on projection:

Kiwi, you are in school taking a science degree. It’s unsurprising that you’d be enthusiastic about science. It’s also a good thing; being enthusiastic about science strengthens your commitment to excel in your studies.

Being enthusiastic about science can lead to an over exuberant appraisal about how the future will turn out, because the enthusiasm blocks out other impacting factors, on how society functions, from our view. What I’m describing is no different than the many experiences we’ve all had of being super excited about something and missing the negatives.

We need to be aware that mindsets that help is in one area of life don’t necessarily help us in other areas of life. This fact is not something to lament, just something to recognize and use in the best way.

So, even though the other guy is often projecting (usually easy to see) we are often projecting too (not always easy to see). Yeah, it’s a little M.C. Escherish, huh?

————————————————————————-
I don’t want to make the thread, in toto, be about a social critique of “science” but I do think the critique element is important to mention at least once. The social critique of science thing is also part of the subtext of this entire blog site Kiwi. Surely you know this from being a regular reader/commenter here. If I’m wrong in that characterization I just made, I invite Abagond to say so.

Science practiced and/or promoted with vested interests is also a huge problem. Of course when a scientist is practicing science with vested interests, they won’t call it that, they’ll just call it “science”.

This article further speaks of the points I made above. It is a nice quick summary of the nasty cultural habit of passing off empty/dubious promises as science.

• “The point I really want you to remember is science doesn’t promise you a future, science is about finding out how the world works,” he told the audience. “When you start predicting the future, you are talking about imagination.”

• Active imagination, scientists’ own pride and funding structures that favor research oriented toward a specific purpose all contribute to the creation of false promises.

In response to the all the commentators on this topic thus far
in response to comments made about losing your comment and errors
I created a text file on my desktop just to comment to this post and regularly clicked save.
In response to my phrase “explain it to me like I was Five!”
I got this from here “http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive” while looking up an explanation for the big thing on the electrical power cord the comes with most laptop computers.

And now a little more on topic
first but not least the great Bulanik,I say great because of the numerous comments just here on this post where you eloquently expressed not just viewpoints I resoundingly agree with ,but new unknown to me (and others who have said as much) information about which I had not known before and am richer because of it.

People like you are a true treasure of our species and one of the main reasons I return to this blog site,its the wonderful and intelligent commentators that make the topics
discussed such a rich and rewarding experience.

your dissertation on ethnicity science%20_%20Abagond.htm#comment-196314 was excellent
I would add that I have always deconstructed the term “western” to mean “white european”
or more specifically “white northern european males” and their culture imposed on the rest of the world though what may be due to their profound inferiority complex on the one hand and the temporal position of their culture in relation to the accumulated cultural evolution of our species on the other.

I mean the most obvious point is how are you going to claim an entire hemisphere as a culture domain ? (after all is not the entire continent of Africa in the western hemisphere?) and insist that only white males are worthy and contributors to the whole of science reason and truth, this is a legacy that they and their descendant will inevitable bear.

science%20_%20Abagond.htm#comment-196331
Madhava of Sangamagrama
didn’t know now I know and it figures..

science%20_%20Abagond.htm#comment-196595
The image of Science is full of intimidation.
tell me/us about it.

“This is what Martin Luther King Jr said:”
For a Indian non american lady you seem to know Martin Luther King Jr’s writings better than most african americans I’ve read or spoken to.

I used to dismiss MLK’s views because I choose the atheist path and he was famously known as a christian preacher ,however more and more I begin to question the wisdom of not reading his writing – and this written in the year of my birth no less 😉

science%20_%20Abagond.htm#comment-196597
and the sad and sorry legacy of sexism as well ,
(In fact, nearly all of the brilliant black girls I knew that had a flair for science
became nurses, instead of scientists, engineers or doctors…)
I grieve at what we have lost and what could have been, and when I say we I mean all of our species.

science%20_%20Abagond.htm#comment-196678
“At my university, all my engineering classes are taught by old white men…..”
supporting factual evidence – form the redoubtable Kiwi no less

science%20_%20Abagond.htm#comment-196686
“She mentioned how society is constructed to favor “the straight, white, male” and I added my personal belief that the lack of female representation was mostly due to discrimination. She seemed incredulous, so I decided not to push the topic.”

What is about about otherwise intelligent non-white people that acknowledging the obvious discrimination by white people in general and white males in particular is some how unthinkable?
Maybe its the thoroughness as well as the viciousness of their (white peoples) hegemony that gives many pause…

science%20_%20Abagond.htm#comment-196598
“explains why Arabic words like algebra, algorithm and alkali are at the very heart of modern science. After all, there would be no modern mathematics or physics without algebra, no computers without algorithms and no chemistry without alkalis.”

some more didn’t know but now I know…

science%20_%20Abagond.htm#comment-196448
“Israel can get whatever it wants from the US, like seventy billion dollars a year, plus weapons and such, whilst it’s been a no-no for Iran to have a nuclear programme because that would be a threat?
I believe the Israelis possess in excess of 400 nuclear bombs at their disposal, yet we’re all safer for that.
(I once saw a listing of the various Jewish terrorist groups held by the US government, but never, I mean nowhere, ever, have I seen any Western government point the finger at any of those groups in relation to 9/11.)

The Israelis can steal land, and murder the people on it, but it has been the Palestinians who will portrayed, via technology, as the perpetrators of destruction…”

Forget about cosigning – every time I hear yet another news report on how Iran needs to not have nuclear weapons I’m gonna remember this…

science%20_%20Abagond.htm#comment-197076
Physics of the Future” by Michio Kaku
The Singularity is Near” by Ray Kurzweil
might need reading ,though I’m aware of both authors

the thing about the Singularity and transhumanism
while it has always been obvious to me this is where we are inevitably headed ,and definitely not without good reason ,but there certain phenomena for which I desire little improvement or advancement – specifically beautiful ,intelligent compassionate people,
perhaps this coming Singularity will remove the barriers to my hearts desire and allow us all to equally and freely enjoy a full life of family ,friends wealth peace and serenity;
if not is it really worth it?

In closing I will say that while I focused upon mainly two of the commentors here I deeply appreciated all of you,and one final note,
a brief spat apparently occurred between two of the commenters here,and it sadden me,
I have myself said and expressed myself unkindly to at least two of you,and for that I am sorry and hereby convey my deepest apologies – in the course of reading and commenting on this blog and others I’ve learned that harsh words said in the moment recur in my memory to my continual discomfort and regret.
Thus I now strive to be as respectful and considerate as possible even with those I strongly disagree or who appear to be an apparent foe.
So thank you all for your comments and contributions and I look forward to more interesting reading….

The Goldilocks zone is the orbital distance from a star in which a planet’s atmosphere allows water to exist in liquid form at the planet’s surface. So far, that is the only known habitat supporting life. Astronomers speculate universe has habitable Earth size planets in the galaxy. This is like the Jetsons or Star Wars, it’s like science fiction. One of every five sunlike stars in the galaxy has a planet the size of Earth circling it in the Goldilocks Zone. Not too hot, not too cold where surface temperatures should be compatible with liquid water,this based on data from the Kepler spacecraft. I think it’s cute that it’s named the Goldilocks zone, I saw this in the Science and Medicine section of the newspaper today.

the word science has it’s origins in the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge. And I learned this from my complete Idiot’s Guide to Critical Reading. I admit something like science is intimidating, so I challenge myself to learning about small things related to subjects that intimidate or something that was boring to me in the past. I am on a quest for knowledge.

Shakuntala Devi is nicknamed the human calculator, she is mentioned in the 1982 Guiness Book of World Records for multiply two 13 digit numbers in just 28 seconds at a time that includes how long it took her to say the 26 digit answer. she took the number 61,629,875 she calculated it’s cubed root. That is one of her amazing feats and earned her the nickname the human calculator. Yesterday was this amazing woman’s 84th birthday.

To avoide the tediouse repetition of these woordes: is equalle to: I will sette as I doe often in woorke use, a paire of paralleles, or gemowe lines of one lengthe: =====, bicause noe .2. thynges, can be moare equalle.

Robert Recorde, The Whetstone of Witte, 1557

___________
___________
Thanks King. I didn’t quite trust my source.

What symbol was used before equals signs? The Arabs invented Algebra … ; time to go on wiki…

A mathematician and writer named Ian Stewart. He has that quote (Recorde’s) at the front of his 17 Equations That Changed the World.

It’s difficult to believe that some other symbolic shorthand didn’t exist way before Recorde’s innovation. I should have been clearer in my original query as to what I was really curious about: the earliest known notation of the concept, “is equal to”.

I never hear any talk about Fukushima anymore. I used to drink a lot of something called Matcha. As soon as Fukushima happened, I ceased drinking Matcha, just out of common sense reflex. I hadn’t thought about Fukushima in awhile but a little while ago I did recall it. I found the following videos and thought they were worth linking.

I opened up my cupboard an hour ago and checked the origin of a couple cans of Tuna. They are product of Thailand. If you’re sharper than me you know where Thailand is in relation to Japan. If you don’t know, do what I did and pull up a map. I was actually concerned about a possible BPA lining to the cans of Tuna before I remembered fucking Fukushima as a risk factor too.

————————————————————–
Testing food at the household level for radiation:

Science is neither objective nor bland, many a scientist put a knife in their contemporary plan to further their own funding or project. In terms of the modern world and what we have it would see our ancestors weren’t sitting on their duffs either. Yet with the advancement of communication we can now spread achievements through out many different societies.

@ Legion, scientist lie in Japan all the time trying to tell the people that everything is ok. When we know it isn’t. The fish in the sea that go on vacation to other parts of the world. We also know that Cesium spreads after such incident enough that at least from the 1940’s- 1980’s maybe still now but I know you could test the vintage of the wine by the Cesium in it.

If they could cover-up Fukushima they would. Unfortunately kids are testing with higher doses of radiation then the scientist had said they would. One would only have to listen to what the American bases are telling their people to watch out. No amount of Gomenasai is going to wish away that damage.

Yet for conspiracy theories my absolute favorite comes down to the alternative energy engine. What is always brought up is that the people who make them die mysteriously.

I love that people say science is objective. Science is cut-throat and I will get my funding over the other guy even if I have to bury him in the grave, ruin his reputation, and make sure everyone thinks she is a quake. Science is art and war mixed with a bit of what we think are facts for this moment.

There is politics to science but something that was law today in less then a blink of an eye something that seemed right is proven wrong. Cold Fusion being one that reminds me of a tennis match with it being possible then impossible to a possibility again.

These men and women in science are too unwilling to simply declare when they don’t know something, they hate to admit that they are just making a guess or operating from an assumption. It is more powerful to speak from fact so the tendency is to act as though the things they discuss are rock solid. Hard to maintain a career, grants, and ego and societal influence when you admit you’re just guessing.

To wit: there is some concept in biology with the awe inspiring name of The Central Dogma. {oooh, ahhh!}

The Central Dogma was taught as a fact for decades, I believe it is still in text books that are being used. It may still be formerly taught, perhaps the younger blog members can let us know. Anyhow it was never a fact, just a hypothesis about the primacy of DNA to influence a biological system. The short story of this hypothesis is that information flows from DNA out to the system. The end. So, this means (if it had been true) that your genes rule you, and you can’t do anything about it.

Fast forward to now. The Central Dogma never deserved to be taught as fact because it had never been tested. Even not testing it, it seems a problematic hypothesis. Biological systems, particularly humans need to adapt. Adapting to the environment would most likely involve being able to send signals back to your DNA from the environment and vice versa. Well, it turns out we do send information from the environment back to the DNA; a contradiction of a famous hypothesis that came to be relied on as truth.

Kiwi! What a pleasure to see that you took some time out from the race politics/race identity threads to comment again in this one.

The “book club” discussion can take place over an infinite span of time.

Technically speaking, this is certainly true. On a practical level, I’d want to get something useful or satisfying out of such discussions. Anyhow, we can see how it will go, depending on what each of us choose to read, your recommendations and/or other stuff.

This from one of my favorite scientist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson a man of quick wit and fierce intelligence, “Just an FYI: Roman numerals have nozero because it was not yet invented,allowing year 2000 to be written efficiently as MM.

The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe it. Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Not really. It’s promoted as true until some experiment shows that the the last “true” fact was slightly wrong or altogether wrong. Also some phenomena are “true” only in specific contexts and breakdown in other contexts, thus becoming “untrue”.

Two examples of context dependent truth would be the current one that everyone knows about:

1.) The behavior of the macro world (Newtonian) contrasted against the behavior of the world of tiny particles (quantum mech.). Is one untrue and the other true? It’s not an appropriate way of setting the frame when discussing them.

2.) Euclidean geometry is the geometry of our senses. You know, a straight line is a straight line. It was (and is) used in the study of light. It is also the same geometry of the billiard/snooker/pool table. Euclidean geometry is so embedded in our culture, we take it for granted, like electricity. But is it “true”? It’s upsetting to have a paradigm shift once some observed phenomena is seen to be obviously “true” and universally pervasive. Guess what? Enter, non Euclidean geometry!

(I wanted to be finished typing by now, so I’m gonna shorten up the history, but do read the history if you’re interested!)

Euclid’s Elements is the book that lays out Euclidean geometry, again the geometry of our common sense.

Euclid’s Fith Postulate is equivalent to the Equidistant Postulate. The Equidisdant Postulate states: Parallel lines are equidistant from each other. Now, the equidisdant postulate seems like an “obvious truth”. Euclid writes The Elements, two thousand years pass and the fifth postulate is still not proven! In the efforts to prove the fifth postulate a new geometry was discovered, one that defies common sense. This new geometry was every bit as valid as Euclidean geometry. But when using non euclidean geometry the old geometry was false and when using euclidean geometry non euclidean geometry was false. Well, again, one is not false or the other true, it just depends what system you want to use, again context dependent.

The discovery of non euclidean geometry forever dispelled the idea that you could have “truth” in Mathematics. Well if you can’t have truth in mathematics, you can’t have it in science either. What you can have are particular systems yielding predictable results. All of this ushered in the new idea of relative truths, which has been abused by some and put to wonderful use by others.

Tyson knows about all this history in Science, so, he is being abusive by talking about truth in the way he’s doing in that quote.

Some might complain that I left some important things out but I really want to stop typing. 😛

“It’s promoted as true until some experiment shows that the the last ‘true’ fact was slightly wrong or altogether wrong. (…)
Tyson knows about all this history in Science, so, he is being abusive by talking about truth in the way he’s doing in that quote.”

IMO you are merging the terms ‘fact’ (or ‘truth’) with ‘theory’ and he isn’t.
Theories do change, sometimes very drastically, but the stuff that is predictable thanks to current theories will still be predictable even when the theories change. For example: people are pretty good at figuring out how quickly things ‘fall down’ near the surface of our planet and a new more advanced theory of gravity wouldn’t make the current calculations untrue.

“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe it. Neil deGrasse Tyson.”

I disagree with that too. Science is a set of best guesses, not all of them right. The great thing about science is that it is self-correcting: it can weed out its own errors.

A good counterexample to what Tyson is saying is scientific racism. It is discredited and out of the mainstream in our time, but it was mainstream a hundred years ago. Scientists said all kinds of racist things. The beauty of science is that their ideas could be disproved.

But, as our knowledge of genetics imperfectly advances, there could be windows of time when scientific racism makes a comeback. Like those Neanderthal genes that non-Africans have. What if one of them can be linked to intelligence? Then what? You know we would never hear the end of it.

But, as our knowledge of genetics imperfectly advances, there could be windows of time when scientific racism makes a comeback. Like those Neanderthal genes that non-Africans have. What if one of them can be linked to intelligence? Then what? You know we would never hear the end of it.

It’s almost certain that science will uncover uncomfortable realities of one type or another that are unpalatable to contemporary worldviews.

I think that the true test of a rational person is their willingness to at least conditionally accept these new truths.

No actually, I’m not. That’s what an axiom is, a statement of an “obvious truth”. Euclid’s axioms were not theories, they were regarded as obvious truths.

(The fifth axiom, actually was eyed suspiciously. Apparently, a significant number of thinkers thought it should be thought of more as a theorem and that is why people were trying to prove it for so long. No one was trying to prove the other axioms because they really were regarded as boringly true, again that is what an axiom is.)

My statement in parenthesis does not help your case Eco. The work done on the fifth postulate “undid” (in a manner of speaking) all of Euclid’s axioms. So, all those “obvious truths” were seen not to be “true”. Again, I’ve stated the story above and if I continue here, I’m just repeating it, so, time to stop.

and he isn’t.

He (based in that quote) is saying Science delivers truth. It does nothing of the sort, for reasons given above, in the first response to Mary.

That’s not what I meant. I think you are merging ‘fact’ with ‘theory’ in the general context of science. IMO Tyson wasn’t trying to say that current theories should be accepted as the truth. They obviously shouldn’t be. The way I see it, he meant the conclusions, scientific achievement.

There are as many positive numbers as there are positive and negative numbers combined. Light can behave like a wave. DNA tests work and modern humans are related to ‘less complex’ life forms. That sort of stuff.
I assume that the fact that theories shouldn’t be accepted as the truth is so obvious to Tyson it didn’t occur to him to point that out.

“That’s what an axiom is, a statement of an ‘obvious truth’.”

Not really, it’s more like a ‘basic premise’.
The way you are using the term ‘truth’ when you are talking about Euclid’s geometry seems very strange to me. I think people became aware of the theory’s limitations, but I wouldn’t say that it became ‘untrue’.

I’ve read it a few times now and I can’t agree with it. In the first paragraph you said that sometimes experiments show that facts are not true. IMO that applies to theories, but not facts. I can’t think of any examples when that happened to a fact. That’s one of the reasons why I think you are mixing up the terms – theories with facts. The way you (mis)use the word ‘axiom’ is another one. Later you wrote that some things are true only in specific contexts, but break down in other ones, that they are only relatively true. I do not see how that is a problem, a flaw.

@ Legion and Abagond: Thanks for the responses I will study them and give them thought. I am new this. Science has always intimidated me, But Neil degrasse has me interested in learning. I am not on the same level as you guys. I just started reading magazines like “Popular Science and Wired. I try digest small bits. But thank you gentlemen for your responses.

“I will start by learning who all the classical scientist are like Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, Einstein. Baby steps for me.”

You should try “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson. IMO it’s the best entry-level science book. It’s very accessible and informative at the same time. It focuses on modern science, stuff like: relativity, radioactivity, the shape, age and size of the universe, properties of chemical elements, evolution, plate tectonics, string theory, the big bang and many more.

Bryson focuses on a topic, like the size of the Earth, and describes how people’s ideas about it changed throughout time and why they changed, then jumps to another related subject and describes its origin. He mainly talks about implications, what a particular discovery meant to humanity. He doesn’t introduce equations or some more advanced abstract ideas. He throws in funny anecdotes and short biographies every now and then, so the book doesn’t get too boring or overwhelming for casual readers.

It seemed that artificial intelligence fell out of fashion for a while, but recently interest has revived. Google has acquired a UK AI company, Deepmind.

This isn’t academic AI research aimed at creating a thinking machine, it is commercially and practically focused development for real world applications. That said, I heard an interview with Demis Hassabis on BBC Radio4 a few days ago and he definitely has a vision of genuine synthetic intelligence not too far in the future.

As for personal computing, I think a lot of future development will have the goal of further integrating full blown computer capabilities and the functionality of mobile devices (Android, iOS etc), but into wearable formats – perhaps things that evolve from the slightly clunky, much-hyped and so far unobtainable Google Glass.

One of the shortcomings of mobile devices has always been the unsuitability of those formats for applications that require extensive use of input devices such as keyboard/mouse etc – graphic design, word processing of large documents etc. I could not write a book, record and master a music track or design a t-shirt on my wife’s Android tablet, so I have largely shunned those devices and remain faithful to my laptop.

I think developing new input technologies to enhance the range of applications for mobile devices could finally see larger computer formats begin to vanish.

I’ve read it a few times now and I can’t agree with it. In the first paragraph you said that sometimes experiments show that facts are not true. IMO that applies to theories, but not facts. I can’t think of any examples when that happened to a fact. That’s one of the reasons why I think you are mixing up the terms – theories with facts.

It’s okay that you don’t agree with it, it won’t alter history. The account that I gave above, is not made up. It is a retelling of the major paradigm shift that occurred in Western intellectual thought, regarding facts as eternal things, prior to the discovery of non euclidean geometry. The discovery of non euclidean geometry was also a realization that facts were not eternal things. I did not mean to use the word “theories”; I meant what I said and I said what I meant.

The way you (mis)use the word ‘axiom’ is another one.

I’m confident and comfortable in my use of the word ‘axiom’. There was a time when it was a new word for me. Being reasonable, I acquainted myself with it.

Later you wrote that some things are true only in specific contexts, but break down in other ones, that they are only relatively true. I do not see how that is a problem, a flaw.

It’s not a flaw. It is the paradigm shift in thought that I explained above and it was a major advance in the approach to examining nature.
———————————————————————–

My initial response to Mary is very clear. You’re still trying to hard Eco.

“It’s okay that you don’t agree with it, it won’t alter history. The account that I gave above, is not made up. It is a retelling of the major paradigm shift that occurred in Western intellectual thought, regarding facts as eternal things, prior to the discovery of non euclidean geometry. The discovery of non euclidean geometry was also a realization that facts were not eternal things. I did not mean to use the word “theories”; I meant what I said and I said what I meant.”

Non-Euclidean geometry was not discovered. It was constructed. Just like Euclid’s geometry. These are abstract theoretical systems and you are inaccurately calling them facts. They often are presented to the general public as fact, but scientists know reality is more subtle. Scientists knew Euclid’s geometry was not a fact, that’s why they felt the need to analyze its axioms, thats why they tried to improve it, looked for a system that resembles reality more closely.

I’m not trying to alter history. You are misrepresenting it.
Theories are not facts. Facts are objectively true things and theories are ideas, systems explaining known facts and helping scientists discover new facts. Theories are not discovered, facts are. Theories are intentionally built.

“I’m confident and comfortable in my use of the word ‘axiom’. There was a time when it was a new word for me. Being reasonable, I acquainted myself with it.”

Axioms are basic premises that are considered to be true, but only within the boundaries of the theory that uses them. For example, a lot of basic, fundamental theories in math assume the existence of infinities. The successor axiom of natural numbers effectively does that. Does that mean that according to the theory of natural numbers (or even better – cardinal numbers) the world/universe should be assumed to be infinite? Of course not. Axioms are not statements that are supposed to be considered generally true, true outside of their theory.

When you are saying stuff like: “Euclid’s axioms were not theories, they were regarded as obvious truths” it shows that either you are skewing reality or do not understand the terms you are using.
Again, these axioms were not facts, they were elements of a theory. People were aware of this and that’s why they questioned them and looked for a system that left less room for doubt, that matched reality better.

“It’s not a flaw. It is the paradigm shift in thought that I explained above and it was a major advance in the approach to examining nature.”

It didn’t happen the way you described it. Your ideas about what was considered a fact are wrong.

You clearly have a problem, I don’t care what it is and it can stay with you. I wasn’t expecting a response from you. A response from you on the matter had to be worthless, because I had properly covered matter, so I never checked until now.

Your post just restates what I said about context dependent truth, but you do so without saying the words: “context dependent truth”. Also, it is a triviality not worth mentioning as to Euclidean geometry being constructed rather than discovered. You would know that if it is correct that you read general science (provided those readings also covered some general math discussion). It happens to be a standard part of math philosophy, if you will, as to whether mathematics is created or discovered. Again, it is a point of philosophy, you really should know that from your generalist reading, a kid would know that from his/her generalist reading and then behave as an adult when discussing the matter. It is simply an illusion to behave as though you are delivering an important truth by saying Euclidean Geometry was constructed, it is a semantical point.

How ridiculous and wasteful you are being. I am not inaccurately calling anything a fact. My response to Mary’s quote of Tyson was to demonstrate the realization of context dependent truth that swept through the practice of mathematics and science and many other fields when non euclidean geometry was discovered. Further, is it really possible that the use of ironic quotes in my post is lost on you? No, your English is too good, you are just talking loud and saying nothing and still trying to hard. That will be all.

“Again, I do invite others to read the history on this matter about relative truths and the discovery of non euclidean geometry.”

And I hope they’ll read the definitions of ‘fact’ and ‘theory’ and understand that they are not similar things, that the term ‘true’ means very different things when it’s used to describe them. Learning why mathematicians prove theorems, but not theories, may be useful too. That should explain why theories can’t be true, at least not like facts can.

Lastly (provided I can discipline myself), it’s simply another triviality that mathematicians prove theorems. Theorems, once proven, allow us and the scientist to see more deeply into a subject and come up with

[wait for it, wait for it people…]

theories about some phenomena under examination/discussion.

Now, I really must disembark from this pedantic merry-go-round of the trivial, leading to nowhere. Eco, you may continue without me and I trust that you will.

Its not often I’ve found something of Legion’s offerings to agree with but since I’m interested in this science debate. (as both Legion and eco will know I have my own views in area!) I’ve scrolled back up to read the discussions and there are some clear statements by Legion which, for me, do stand out:

Two examples of context dependent truth would be the current one that everyone knows about:

1.) The behavior of the macro world (Newtonian) contrasted against the behavior of the world of tiny particles (quantum mech.). Is one untrue and the other true? It’s not an appropriate way of setting the frame when discussing them.

2.) Euclidean geometry is the geometry of our senses. You know, a straight line is a straight line. It was (and is) used in the study of light. It is also the same geometry of the billiard/snooker/pool table. Euclidean geometry is so embedded in our culture, we take it for granted, like electricity. But is it “true”? It’s upsetting to have a paradigm shift once some observed phenomena is seen to be obviously “true” and universally pervasive. Guess what? Enter, non Euclidean geometry!…

…The discovery of non euclidean geometry forever dispelled the idea that you could have “truth” in Mathematics. Well if you can’t have truth in mathematics, you can’t have it in science either. What you can have are particular systems yielding predictable results. All of this ushered in the new idea of relative truths, which has been abused by some and put to wonderful use by others.

Tyson knows about all this history in Science, so, he is being abusive by talking about truth in the way he’s doing in that quote.

This is exactly the point about Science which those who have been educated dogmatically through a process of indoctrination about the infallibility of science, maths and technology have the most difficult time grasping. (eco please take note, yet again!)

Science is not immune to politics, greed, untruths and downright falsifications. In fact I would go further and say much of what we know and generally learn about science is tenuous at the least and certainly should not be regarded as “true” or “truths” at all. This is because most of it can be shown as “relative” or “context dependent” as Legion correctly states.

In my view any discussion about the role and future of scientific/technological progress which fails to explicitly incorporate or specify (and abide by) its own moral or ethical value system is devolved, backward or doomed in terms of eventual progress.

What is the point in developing Artificially Intelligence systems and placing these into computers or robots if such machines end up replicating the failed un-expunged traits (white supremacy) of its designers?

Essentially, we are not programmed to die. We age simply because it just happens. That is, nobody designs a car to break down, but we all know that they do eventually. That’s just the result of the second law of thermodynamics

This is a classic example of the intoxicated, indoctrinated and delusional thinking that comes with thinking of science in a vacuum separated from the interconnectedness of life and death on this planet.

The “second law of thermodynamics” may be applicable in a dis-connected vacuum but you would really need to prove one exists….

I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that I believe Kwamla is the sort of person to fall into one of two categories with regard to relative truth. Two categories which I made brief mention of earlier when I said:

All of this ushered in the new idea of relative truths, which has been abused by some and put to wonderful use by others.

Kwamla belongs to the abusive camp. The reader who thinks I’m being merely unpleasant can simply have a look at Kwamla’s respect for science by reading his various espousals on another thread:

Lets remember you are not the best or most informed and knowledgeable person in the area of Melanin. You have too (like many others) unresolved prejudices about the subject to be considered objective. Therefore your views or opinions on the science really don’t hold for much.

Could it be? Is it possible you may be falling foul of your own charges of abuse?

“Theorems, once proven, allow us and the scientist to see more deeply into a subject and come up with (…) theories about some phenomena under examination/discussion. ”

It’s the other way around. First you have a theory, a system that can’t be proven, can’t be true nor false, not generally, not in a particular context. It can match reality better than some other system, but that does not make it more true. When you have a theory you can use its axioms to deduce theorems and then use that do deduce more complicates theorems. They are facts and they can be true in the context of the theory.

You are disagreeing with Neil deGrasse Tyson, because you are applying the term “true” to things he wouldn’t perceive that way. Theories have not become context dependent or relative truths. There is nothing to deduce that from, no fact that could have been used to prove they are true within a context. Can you show me a mathematical proof of the claim that non euclidean geometry is true within some context? You can’t. Not only such a thing doesn’t exist it also can’t be constructed.

Facts can be context dependent truths, but even the ancients knew that. They understood that different philosophical systems lead to different conclusions, but that the systems themselves can’t be established as true beyond any doubt.

deGrasse Tyson is absolutely right. The things that are true will remain to be true. Facts will still be facts even if their theories will become discarded and forgotten.

Before I give you the bad news, a question: have you heard of 3d printing?

on Sat 26 Jul 2014 at 04:38:38 Legion

The technology to do the following is not there yet, but perhaps one day:

imagine those nasty robots you drew our attention to, imagine that they can repair themselves after taking combat damage. Not a pleasant thought.

on Sat 26 Jul 2014 at 04:43:22 King

Yes, but I know the technology as Additive Process Manufacturing. I’ve even used it a few times. Hmm… That would be VERY bad indeed! Where can I read about it??

on Sat 26 Jul 2014 at 04:55:25 Legion

I’ve just been reading general articles on it. The military application popped into my head, it wasn’t something I read. The articles I’ve read were mostly American and I think one was British. Naturally, the message was all about consumer benefits and revolution in manufacturing.

You’re pulling my leg about asking for recommended reading on the subject; you’ve used it. But here’s one that toned down the hype a bit:

No, seriously I hadn’t read a single thing about the Pentagon’s plans to use the technology. Like you said the military applications are simply obvious. One would have to have a preexisting mental block not to think of it on their own. A mental block like naive patriotism toward America. I love America but I’m not blind or daft.

Also, the “3d printing” is simply a logical extension of using robots. Also, the Pentagon has, perhaps since Vietnam, been wanting to magically wage war without losing American lives, or losing as few as possible. I guess if you wait long enough technology can sometimes deliver that magic.

What that adage points out is the plain old industrial policy of the US. New technologies that change the world are as expensive as f*&k. The internet was a military project; or, you know, precursors to what we now call “the internet”.
Military size budgets are needed to develop things like tiny transistors that will revolutionize electronics.

But, of course, it does make sense if you know about the other things going on.

What do you know about nanotechnology? I would like you to go to this conference and then write a position paper on the true projected applications of the technology as applies to military use, please.

It’s been a very bad trait of mine to discount observations or ideas that I have about things. But, I’ll thank you for the compliment!

The symposium!? Sure thing hotshot! Hey between the two of us, you’re the one whose actually used the technology. 😛
—————
Nanotech? Not much really. I find it fascinating of course. I got excited about it a few years ago but then set it aside as something to keep up with; probably not a good idea in this fast changing world of ours.

The reason I ask about nanotechnology is because it is often touted as a means of robotic self repair—almost as a mechanical immune system, where the nanobots are functionally equivalent to white corpuscles. I just wondered how additive manufacturing and nanotechnology might be used together to achieve robotic self repair?

Hm, 3d printing’s effect (one of them) should be a redefining of Haute Couture. The artisans of the atelier would not be needed (for physical crafting of the garment, that is). The design of the designer would go straight into a CAD program and then, voila!

It’s a little difficult not to become heady over this technology. It will far, far surpass the impact of the internet. This really ought to bring about the “new economy”, drunkenly and hucksterishly spoken of in the 90’s.
———————————————————
Re: Nanotech and 3d printing.

^ The problem of structural weakness in the z plain, mentioned in the article, is a HUGE problem, though. If that can’t be overcome, we can say good bye to a revolution in construction and manufacturing. I wonder if a nanotech solution could be found? Like nano particles that bond the weakness in the z plain during the printing or after the fact…

I agree. The additive process is par more efficient than the current ways of doing almost anything in smaller numbers. And when the speed is increased ( which it certainly will as the technology develops) it will be more efficient, adaptive, and far cheaper than all the methods currently in use.

One can easily imagine the Star Trek “Replicator” being very close to what might be achieved once the process can be accomplished at higher speed. In fact, it is already beginning to be used in food services as well.

Thank you for the link. I fear you will only make me more wild eyed and giddy, though!

A thought occurred to me while reading the food article. The need for computer encryption will grow and grow and grow; we will always need it, and more and more sophisticated applications of it. Encryption itself, of course, is as old as the hills, indeed, as old as man’s first secret. Imagine eating something that isn’t quite food, because someone had tampered with the printer.
———————————————————————-

More thoughts:

• Imagine being able to take your accommodations with you when vacationing. You reach your destination and manufacture temporary digs upon arrival, you would need permission or a preexisting arrangement from whomever owns the land. If you’re rich maybe it’s your own land!

I’m thinking more someone who is traveling around in their own sea faring vessel, Not an airline passenger. The raw materials for the printing need to be carried along on vacation for the scenario above. I guess you’d have to be rich to do any of that scenario, still amazing though.

I feel like reviewing Michio Kaku’s gradiated levels of civilization and see where additive manufacturing fits.

• This impact the insurance industry in ways I can’t wholly see, but a massive impact, for sure. Do you need to insure what can easily be replaced? What one would insure is one’s raw materials, the seed from whence everything is springing.

“There are two different angles at play in the discussion about colonialism and science. First is what constitutes scientific epistemology and what its origins are… [2nd] Europeans have engaged what is called “internalist” science very seriously over the last 500 years and often in service and tandem with colonialism and white supremacy. For example, Huygens and Cassini facilitated and directed astronomical observation missions in order to help the French better determine the location of St. Domingue, the island that houses the modern nations of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Why? Because this would help make the delivery of slaves and export of the products of their labor more efficient.”

@Speak Out
you comment a reading list while quit lengthy is appreciated.
Basically and fundamentally there is one science and one math and it simply another task of a branch of science to describe how humans of particular groups may or may not try to approiate this type of knowledge and exclude all others.

Stephen Hawking died today on PI Day a day to The mathematically gifted is probably seen as a holy holiday. Hawking liked to say he was born 300 years to the day after Galileo died on Wednesday, 139 years after Albert Einstein was born, on PI Day. I read this little tidbit on my newsfeed from the New York Times. The Theory of Everything starring Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking is a good film. All those geniuses births and deaths intertwined, is a mystery and fascinating. I was always fascinated how that he lived this long with the debilitating motor neuron disease that left him in a wheelchair and unable to speak except through a device that synthesiser.